I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might
be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
Paul

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will

Paul

My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to
declare
a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to
be
made. D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
stable spec. However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
will likely have little future once D2 is finalized. I don't think the same
mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will

Paul

My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to
declare
a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to
be
made. D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
stable spec. However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
will likely have little future once D2 is finalized. I don't think the same
mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I
thought it might

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes
-- is it

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to
choose

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for
example, could

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to
3.0 will

Paul

My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake
to declare
a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were
still to be
made. D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who
needed a
stable spec. However, it was released before the "real" spec was
finalized and
will likely have little future once D2 is finalized. I don't think
the same
mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially
stable spec
when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent
release.

I hit the wrong button :)
* Added compile time error for comparing class types against null
(v1.028)
* Added version identifier D_PIC when -fPIC switch is used (v1.031)
* Added .__vptr and .__monitor properties for class objects for use
in the internal runtime library (v1.032)
* Now supports array operations (v1.034, which Walter claims "It
should have been there")
So there is probably just one breaking change (.init), and others are
more likely bug fixes or really minor enhancements (__VENDOR__?), so I
could say the spec itself is pretty stable.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will

Paul

My 2 cents is that I think, in hindsight, it might have been a mistake to
declare
a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to
be
made. D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
stable spec. However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
will likely have little future once D2 is finalized. I don't think the same
mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to the stability of the D1
spec, but the spec for the D trunk. Yes, on the "trunk spec", in this case D2,
breaking changes are fine to a degree, but D1 and D2 appear to be diverging
significantly. My point is that it might have been premature to declare a
meaningful stable branch that doesn't end up as almost a separate language from
the trunk.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it might

With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it

It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose

Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could

I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will

Paul

a 1.0 release when so many breaking changes to the language spec were still to
be
made. D1 seems like it's an artificially stable spec for people who needed a
stable spec. However, it was released before the "real" spec was finalized and
will likely have little future once D2 is finalized. I don't think the same
mistake should be made by releasing D2 as yet another artificially stable spec
when there is still likely to be massive code breakage in a subsequent release.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to the stability of the D1
spec, but the spec for the D trunk. Yes, on the "trunk spec", in this case D2,
breaking changes are fine to a degree, but D1 and D2 appear to be diverging
significantly. My point is that it might have been premature to declare a
meaningful stable branch that doesn't end up as almost a separate language from
the trunk.

OK. I see what you mean then.
But the most painful transition from D1 to D2 is just fixing those
invariant/const stuff I think, but other than that it is quite easy to
change.
At least easier than VB6 -> VB.NET. :p
(I'm not saying D2 is back-compat, though.)

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is
it time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to
choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example,
could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0
will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

Maybe, but I'd hate to see the D1/D2 divide end up becoming a D1/D2/D3
divide.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is
it time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to
choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example,
could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0
will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

Maybe, but I'd hate to see the D1/D2 divide end up becoming a D1/D2/D3
divide.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

There is a sort of precedent. Windows 1.0 was a proof-of-concept edition,
Windows 2.0 was forgettable, and it was not until Windows 3.0 that is
became usable.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
skype: derek.j.parnell

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.

There is a sort of precedent. Windows 1.0 was a proof-of-concept edition,
Windows 2.0 was forgettable, and it was not until Windows 3.0 that is
became usable.

Wouldn't mind if those involved would make comparable amounts of money :o).
Andrei

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
Paul

I'd hate to see D2 be permanently anti-tango, especially since Tango developers
favor a stable language. I'd prefer to see druntime, the fix to dynamic
closures, etc in D2

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
Paul

I'd hate to see D2 be permanently anti-tango, especially since Tango
developers favor a stable language. I'd prefer to see druntime, the fix to
dynamic closures, etc in D2

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought
it might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes --
is it time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to
choose between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example,
could fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0
will occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
Paul

Personally I see this a horrible reason to make a divide. Others have
mentioned a 1/2/3 divide issue, but frankly I don't see that as
avoidable. Look at how many options you have for a GCC versions in a
Linux repository. I think DMD should handle many versions of itself a
little better (conf file) but that is a different issue.
The problem is, who will want to use 2.0? Currently a big problem is the
"wild west" syndrome that it has. If this is released having 3.0 the
Phobos/Tango merger, people will skip 2.0 to go for Tango. Don't get me
wrong, we have many Phobos users; we really want to get rid of this
divide as soon as possible, not make it permanent.
On to the question of "time for a D3." Consider what happened with this
first split.
A stable branch (1.0) was to be created that would not allow "breaking
changes" (new features are a special breaking change as it might not
break past code). 2.0 became the test bed for new very different ideas
that really change how the language worked.
There had been many bug reports filed before the idea of a split came
about. Many people did not think a version break would stop feature crepe
of the already posted requests. This would be important in deciding what
to split.
Another thing to look at is reducing user choice. When someone is
creating a new project, you want them to choose the latest release for
it. You aren't likely to choose Java 1.4 over 1.6 however, I think in D's
case even after a 2.0 release, we will likely see such a discussion being
made. This will be the case if the user does not like the way const is
done, and if the Tango merge is done in 3.0 that would be another reason.
This should be avoided, but not a reason to leave out features in future
versions.
If a 3.0 is to be considered a clear line should be drawn and the line
should not be a radical change for the foreseeable future i.e. when the
split is created.

I posted this comment already in the phobos/tango thread but I thought it
might be of more general interest.
With all the changes being discussed -- many of the breaking changes -- is it
time to move on to D version 3.0?
It seems to me a natural division exists between 2.0, when we had to choose
between tango and phobos; and 3.0, when we got to use them both.
Some of the other recent discussions here, template syntax, for example, could
fall on the other side of the 2.0/3.0 divide.
I'm sure Walter and others have discussed when and how the move to 3.0 will
occur. Just wondering if this important change should be a factor.
Paul

I've always seen the library, be it Tango or Phobos, as separate and
entirely different from the version of DMD. I've always been under the
impression that the Phobos/Tango resolution wouldn't really involve
changing the compiler or language at all - although maybe with the
unified runtime someone will take advantage of this and add features
like crazy since there will only be one runtime to update instead of
two. I don't know about that point.
My point is that I don't think that we should start tying the libraries
to the compiler.